See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342476967

REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21

ST CENTURY LEARNER

Article · June 2020

DOI: 10.31838/jcr.07.09.223

CITATIONS READS
0 134

4 authors, including:

Muhammad Minan Chusni Sulistyo Saputro

UIN Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung Universitas Sebelas Maret
49 PUBLICATIONS   52 CITATIONS    101 PUBLICATIONS   657 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pengembangan LKPD View project

Testlet Instrumen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Minan Chusni on 26 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Critical Reviews

ISSN- 2394-5125 Vol 7 , Issue 9, 2020

REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY

LEARNER
Muhammad Minan Chusni1, Sulistyo Saputro2*, Suranto3, Sentot Budi Rahardjo4
1Student of doctoral program in natural science education in Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.
E-mail: [email protected]
2, 3, 4Professor in science education doctoral program in Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia.

*Corresponding E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 25.03.2020 Revised: 26.04.2020 Accepted: 27.05.2020

Abstract
The challenge of educational system in the future is to make educational process which has specific aspect with the general ability for
student to live now and then. In 21st century, student must be having four competencies such as, CTS, creative thinking, collaborative and
communicative skill. The CTS is one of basic competence which is important for each student to assimilate by change era and new culture.
Many researches have done research about CTS and how to teach it. This article is a review of CTS that focuses on discussion about
definition of thinking, the truth of CTS, implication of CTS and the assessment of CTS.

Keyword: CTS, 21st century skill, 21st century education

© 2020 by Advance Scientific Research. This is an open-access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.09.223

INTRODUCTION: limited resources such as facilities and infrastructure. All of these

Science and technology (Sci-Tech) become a landmark of 21st factors have an impact on the implementation of learning
century era. It has much of benefit to help human activity. In activities in the classroom that are lacking of practicing the CTS.
Addition, Sci-Tech need the higher of human ability to make it And then, the profile of graduates is definite because students who
useful in optimum and maximum impact. Sci-Tech is also giving graduate from school become theoretically intelligent with lack of
the compensation to the educational system and educational problem-solving ability (Malik & Chusni, 2019).
process in the schools (Setya et al., 2019; Yuningsih, Chusni, & The low profile of graduates makes students not ready to adapt
Sidik, 2018). Sci-Tech compensation in the education system is an into the society. This refers to the characteristics of the 21st
adjustment of skill requirements which indicate that the century where globalization, free trade, and regional autonomy
knowledge is not enough (Dirgantara et al., 2019). Critical, are requiring the human resources who can hold out with all
creative, and innovative thinking skills are needed to confront the possibilities. Therefore, CTS become one of the main things that
future challenges. If students at the secondary school level are needed to increase the profile of graduates and improve student
equipped knowledge only, then the knowledge will expire and be competitiveness. This aspect must be prepared from elementary
replaced with the latest knowledge. One of the provisions that until high school, if students are not given training related to CTS
must be given in preparing future labor is to equip students how so they will find it to difficult to compensate for the development
to think (Schraw, Crippen, & Hartley, 2006). To realize this, of the contemporary world where knowledge and Sci-Tech
education has an important task to prepare human resources with develop very quickly (Moseley, Baumfield, & Elliott, 2005).
great competences in the future.
PROCESS AND CONCEPT OF THINKING
Education as a learning process is not enough to simply pursue the Thinking is a characteristic that makes the difference between
problem of intelligence. Every student has potential or other humans and other creatures. Thinking begins when humans are
learning subjects that also need to get proportional attention in able to provide a perception of the environment and then continue
order to develop them optimally (Agustina, Chusni, & Izharuddin, throughout life. Humans use the mind to adapt to various changes
2019). The fact Indonesians learning process generally is still and evolution. Every time humans successfully adapt to the
directed towards cognitive abilities only. The students have to evolution of the environment, their abilities and thought
memorize a lot of information but not to understand the processes will also develop indirectly. There are various
information and how to use it. So, this process does not encourage definitions of thinking. Thinking is behavior that uses ideas, which
the achievement of CTS every time (Sanjaya, 2009). is a symbolic process (Fauzi, 2004). Thinking is also defined as the
There are a lot of factors that hinder the development of students' development of ideas and concepts in a person (Suriasumantri,
CTS. The first factor is the curriculum which generally has a 1984).
comprehensive target material. The second factor can be seen Development of ways of thinking is obtained through building a
from the teacher's ability to understand the learning models that process of connecting information. Solso (1988) provides the
can improve CTS (Duldt-Battey, 1997). The learning process that definition of thinking as a process of representation of new
used is different from usual so it is requiring additional expertise thoughts formed from changes in form through information in the
and knowledge for the teacher to practice CTS. Student factors complete interaction of thought added to decisions, abstractions.
also become a problem to adapt and practice the CTS. Usually, This includes simplifying reason, imagination and problem
students are having low interest and motivation to learn and solving (Solso, 1988). According to Santrock, (2014) thinking is
practice of CTS because the learning seems ineffective. In terms of the activity of manipulating or managing and transforming
school management, practice the CTS becomes a problem where information (Santrock, 2014). Thinking is using to form a concept,
not all of the schools are provide the facilities that support the reason with critical, make decisions, creative and solve the
learning activities. In general, the problems of the schools are the problems.

Journal of critical reviews 1230

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

Based on some of the opinions mentioned above, it can be Professional definition or opinion
concluded that thinking is the development of ideas and concepts The CTS definition was then carried out by many experts from the
in a person as a process of representing new thoughts through the philosophy and psychology study groups (Lewis & Smith, 1993).
activities to manipulate, to manage and to transform any Sternberg, (1986) then gave rise to the third CTS in the field of
information become as concepts, critically reason, make decisions, Education (Sternberg, 1986). Lai, (2011) imply a summarize of
and solve problems. definitions of CTS based on philosophical studies and others field
in Table 1.
SUBTANCE OF CTS

Table 1. Professional definition about CTS

Author Year Field Definition
Ennis 1985 - CTS described as reflective and reasonable to decide what to believe or do (Ennis,
1985)
Lipman 1988 Philosophy The deft and responsible thinking facilitating that 1) is based on criteria, 2) is self-
conscious, and 3) is attention to context (Lipman, 1988)
Halpern 1988 - CTS is the goal, reason and direction of the goal. The ability to think critically
includes problems solving, concluding, anticipating with probability, and making
decisions (Halpern, 1998)
Facione 1990 - CTS has results that are interpretation, analyzation, evaluation, and inference, as
well as explaining of an evidence, method, concept and criteria, or contextual
considerations or make a decision as a self-regulation in deciding something
(Facione, 1990)
McPeck 1990 Philosophy the skills and inclination to involve themselves in some activities with reflective
skepticism (McPeck, 1990)
R. W. Paul 1992 Philosophy Disciplined and independent thinking which indicates the perfection of thought
which is adapted to a particular mode or place of thought (R. W. Paul, 1992)
Bailin, Case, 1999 Philosophy Thinking is goal-directed and purposive with aims to form a judgment where it is
Coombs, & adequate and accurate (Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, 1999)
Daniels
Willingham 2007 Cognitive Studying problems from two different sides, being open-minded with new evidence
Psychology that affects ideas, giving reason without feeling, conveying claims supported by
evidence, making conclusions from existing facts, solving problems, and so on.
(Willingham, 2007)

CTS then began to be introduced in the context of education. One Paul model. Both of these models are only used as a reference in
elaboration of aspects of CTS is found in Bloom's taxonomy (BT). compiling learning syntax or procedures.
Bloom's Taxonomy is one of the references in identifying the
depth of mastery of content or skills (Bloom, 1956). Bloom's In addition to the two opinions expressed by Bassham and Paul,
taxonomy has hierarchical from "understanding" at the bottom to there are still many CTS models put forward by scientists with
"evaluation" at the top. The level that often categorized as CTS is different criteria. To stay focused, educational scientists in a
analysis (C4), synthesis (C5), and evaluation (C6) (Kennedy, discussion have formulated the core of CTS. There are six aspect
Fisher, & Ennis, 1991). such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation
and self-regulation (American Philosophical Association, 1990).
Criteria of CTS Nevertheless, the results of the consensus can still be interpreted
CTS consist of various components or aspects. Based on different based on the scope of the knowledge and the cases found. Walker,
disciplines, scientists put forward these components or aspects. (1997) for example, giving statements that the character of CTS is
The different aspects put forward by experts provide variations answering questions, formulating problems, examining facts,
on the model of CTS in learning. analyzing assumptions and thinking about interpretations
(Walker, 1997).
Basssham, William, Henry, & James, (2002) states that the
components of CTS are clarity, accuracy, relevance, consistency, Norris & Ennis, (1989) divides the components of knowledge
logical validity, completeness and fairness (Basssham et al., 2002). mastery ability into five skills, hereinafter referred to as CTS, as
R. W. Paul & Linda, (2002) states that the components mentioned described below. (1) Provide simple explanations, (2) Building
above still need to be added to the breadth of meaning and depth basic skills, (3) Drawing conclusions, (4) Provide further
of CTS (R. W. Paul, 1992). From these two opinions, two CTS clarification (advanced clarification), and (5) Managing strategies
learning models are obtained, namely the Bassham model and the and tactics (Norris & Ennis, 1989).
In other statement, Ennis, (1996) states that there are 6 basic
elements in CTS shortened to FRISCO (Ennis, 1996).

Journal of critical reviews 1231

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

Focus Reason Inference Situation Clarity Overview

focus on can to Giving the You have explaning review and
questions selection conclussio to about the thoroughly
or issues to about the n based on understand term examine
make the the fact ing about the
decisions reasoncts. and the the decisions
about what assumtion situation of taken.
is believed. your circle

Figure 1. FRISCO Criteria of CTS by Ennis

Table 2. The Difference Aspect of CTS by Experts

Author CTS Aspects
Bassham Clarity Truth Accuracy Relevance Persistent Logic
(2002) Completeness Fairness - - - -

Clarity Truth Accuracy Relevance Persistent Logic

Paul (2002)
Completeness Fairness Meaningful Expert - -

Facione
Interpretation Analyze Evaluation Inference Explanation Self Confidence
(2000)

Walker Answer the Find the

Research Analyze Interpretation -
(1997) Question problems

Garrison
Trigger event exploration integration resolution - -
(2001)

Define the Emotional

Make the Question Data Verify Analyze Simplification
Wade (1995) Question Consideration

Interpretation Tolerance - - - -

Truth Analyze Logic Structured classifieds Decision

Fisher (2011)
Understandin
Prediction theoretical - - -
g

Elementary Advance Strategies and

Norris (1989) Basic Support Inference -
Clarification Clarification Tactics

Ennis (1996) Focus Reason Inference Situation Clarity Overview

Based on Table 2, it can be seen that each scientist has their own differences, it can be identified that there are criteria for
views and assumptions in providing criteria for CTS. Besides the agreement. The first, CTS researchers usually concur with specific

Journal of critical reviews 1232

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

definitional skills, including: 1) Analyze of arguments or evidence instruction which are dedicated to CTS such as abilities and
(Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998; R. W. Paul, 1992); 2) dispositions have to modify into all levels of the K-12 curriculum.
Make conclusions with reasoning (Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; R.
W. Paul, 1992; Willingham, 2007); 3) Assess or evaluate (Case, Lots of empirical evidence promote this idea that young children
2005; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990; Lipman, 1988; Tindal & Nolet, are able to think critically. Koenig & Harris, (2005) said that
1995); and 4) Make a decision or solve a problem (Ennis, 1985; children aged 3 and 4 years will distinguish the credibility of
Halpern, 1998; Willingham, 2007). various sources of information. In particular, 4-year-old children
are seen to prefer and agree on adult judgments based on the
The second, other abilities that relevant with CTS are questioning amount of experience they have. As well as, Lutz & Keil, (2002)
and answering the questions to clarify the term (Ennis, 1985); to found that 4-year-old children seemed to be beginning to realize
identify opinion (Ennis, 1985; R. W. Paul, 1992); to interpret and that different people might have different domains of expertise
explain (Facione, 1990); to make verbal reason and possibility and this might be related to their credibility (Lutz & Keil, 2002).
(Halpern, 1998); prediction (Tindal & Nolet, 1995); and learn the
problem from both sides (Willingham, 2007). LEARNING IMPLICATION
Some researchers provide recommendations regarding teaching
The third is about character. Scientists basically agree with the strategies to encourage the development of CTS. Suggested
existence of character as an internal aspect in showing CTS strategies include by using model of teaching, and by using any
(Facione, 1990). In early 1985, researchers recognized that CTS constructivism techniques. For example, researcher has noted
differed from proclivity to do (Ennis, 1985). Empirical evidence is that CTS is difference abilities that can not to develop without
used to make sure the idea that CTS and attitude are separate direct instruction (Abrami et al., 2008; Case, 2005; Facione, 1990;
entities (Facione, 2000). This attitude has been interpreted as Halpern, 1998; R. W. Paul, 1992). Facione points out that this
many habits of the mind. Facione (2000) defines the nature of CTS instruction must not only be explicit but also pay attention to
as "consistent internal motivation to act toward or respond to dispositions and affective components.
people, events, or circumstances in a habit, but potentially in a soft
way". Researchers are usually identifying similar sets and relevant Another recommendation is using a collaborative learning
characters to CTS (Facione, 2000). For example, the most (Abrami et al., 2008; Bailin et al., 1999; Bonk & Smith, 1998;
frequently quoted character of CTS is: 1) open-mindedness (Bailin Heyman, 2008; Nelson, 1994; R. W. Paul, 1992; Thayer-Bacon,
et al., 1999; Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1990, 2000; Halpern, 1998); 2) 2000). This recommendation refers to the results of research and
fair-mindedness (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990); 3) the traditions followed by Piagetian (Piagetian theorists) and
propensity to seek reason (Bailin et al., 1999; Ennis, 1985; R. W. Vygotsky who emphasize the social interaction to encourage the
Paul, 1992); 4) inquisitiveness (Bailin et al., 1999; Facione, 1990, cognitive development (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley,
2000); 5) the desire to be well-informed (Ennis, 1985; Facione, 1996).
1990); 6) flexibility (Facione, 1990; Halpern, 1998); and 7) respect
for, and willingness to entertain, others’ viewpoints (Bailin et al., Piaget provided a reference to the instructional value of cognitive
1999; Facione, 1990). conflict to catalyze the process of cognitive development. This
usually looks effective if the child / student is given the
Empirical Development of Student CTS opportunity to interact with other people who have a higher
The initial phase of research on the development of children / cognitive level.
students by Piaget tends to regard student’s cognitive processes Besides, an explicit instructions and guides are other strategies
as deficiencies in relationships with adults. This theory was that can help to improve CTS (Bonk & Smith, 1998; R. W. Paul,
adopted by many education experts who gave statements that 1992). Instruction used in constructivist methods is more
children are unable to perform formal operations (abstract structured than instruction in traditional learning. This method
reasoning) which is one of the basic components of CTS (Kennedy provides more opportunities for students during learning. In
et al., 1991). Over time, the results of a recent study conducted by implementing CTS oriented learning, educators must be able to
providing treatment of adult cognitive processes to young people provide direction and provide related examples. This can be
concluded that there is an opportunity to practice CTS in the basic achieved through thinking deeply, so students can observe the
curriculum (Gelman & Markman, 1986). Silva (2008) added that teacher in using evidence and logic to support arguments and
there is no limitation of age when students are ready to learn the statements (Facione, 2000; R. W. Paul, 1992).
complex problems and complex thinking. Furthermore,
Willingham (2007) shows that young people can be trained in CTS, Educators are also advised to use concrete examples that will give
while even trained scientists can experience errors in reasoning a real impression to students especially to illustrate abstract
(Willingham, 2007). This has become one of the arguments in concepts such as "conflicts of interest" (Heyman, 2008; R. W. Paul,
providing complex thinking processes, especially CTS to 1992). Examples taken from real experiences are more likely to be
elementary and middle school students. Kennedy et al., (1991) clear for students intuitively. Learning activities that are believed
make a conclusion that CTS can increase without influence age, to be able to encourage the CTS are making charts, making concept
even the first grade of student can benefit from CTS instruction maps and making argument diagrams (Bonk & Smith, 1998; Van
(Kennedy et al., 1991). Gelder, 2005). In making a chart, students must first identify what
they already know about a topic, what they want to know, and
Bailin, Case, Coombs, & Daniels, (1999) argues that the application what they have learned. For other examples related to the
of CTS competencies at the basic level includes things in the form implications of learning are making simple essays that require
of: a) respecting reason; b) respect for others in the discussion; c) summary arguments, problem-based learning - specifically the
open minded; d) willing to see things from other people's point of use of unstructured problem contexts, and mock experiments
view; e) distinguish between definitions and empirical (Bonk & Smith, 1998).
statements; f) using cognitive strategies, and g) using the
principles of CTS. Likewise, report American Philosophical LEARNING ASSESSMENT
Association, (1990) recommend that "from early childhood, they CTS assessment is important because it has several objectives
should be given direction and lessons, for example, to reason, to namely to 1) diagnose the level of CTS and character of students,
look for relevant facts, to consider choices, and to understand the so the teacher can decide what to teach, 2) as feedback to students
views of others" (Facione, 1990). In addition, report American about their CTS, so the teacher can decide what must be done
Philosophical Association, (1990) states that the explicit about it, 3) provide motivation to students to become better
critical thinkers, 4) provide information to teachers regarding

Journal of critical reviews 1233

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

success in practicing CTS to students, 5) provide information collaborative or cooperative learning, modeling, and
related to students' abilities and practice acceptance and guidance constructivist techniques. Assessment can be done by looking at
attitudes towards students, 6) as information for school policies the aim to assess one aspect or more than one aspect of CTS. After
and other things that can be accounted for regarding students' reviewing the literature review on CTS, the author gives several
CTS. suggestions, namely a) Development of learning models that can
stimulate CTS should be done, b) Development of CTS instruments
Assessment of CTS is included in the assessment of high-stakes, needs to be done.
namely "assessment of high importance". This refers to the need
and purpose of carrying out the assessment. Assessment with a ACKNOWLEDGMENT
high level of expectation of use requires greater funding with the The authors wish to thank Ministry of Religion of the Republic of
consequence the smaller the level of achievement of these Indonesia. This work was supported in part by a grant from 5000
objectives (Ennis, 2011). Specifically, the completeness of aspects Doctoral Program, Number 2825/DJ.I/Dt.I.III/PP.04/08/2018.
of CTS is an obstacle in high-stakes assessment.
Instruments for measuring CTS are basically widely available. The REFERENCES
evaluator only needs to match the characteristics of the 1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A.,
assessment to the data requirements. Bers, (2005) shows several Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional
assessments of CTS, including 1) Academic Profile; 2) California interventions affecting critical thinking skills and
CTS Disposition Inventory (CCTDI), this test is provided from an dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational
in-depth assessment (California Academic Press), to measure Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.
students' internal motivation in solving the problem and making 2. Agustina, R. D., Chusni, M. M., & Izharuddin, M. (2019).
decision; 3) California CTS Test (CCTST) that assesses the ability Efficacy and potential of physics education students in
to think critically and reason both individuals or groups; 4) mathematical physics subject. Ournal of Physics: Conference
Background study; 5) Collegiate Assessment of Academic Series, 1175(1), 012178.
Proficiency (CAAP); 6) Collegiate Learning Assessment Project 3. American Philosophical Association. (1990). Critical
(CLA); 7) Task; 8) Test of Everyday Reasoning; 9) Watson-Glaser Thinking.
CTS Appraisal; 10) Community College Survey of Student 4. Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1999).
Engagement (CCSSE) and 11) Holistic CTS Scoring Rubric (Bers, Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of Curriculum
2005). Studies, 31(3), 285–302.
5. Basssham, G., William, J., Henry, N., & James, M. W. (2002).
Ennis, (2001) also shows various tests regarding CTS that have Critical Thinking A Students Introduction. USA: McGraw-Hill.
been published. The various tests are grouped according to the 6. Bers, T. (2005). Assessing Critical Thinking in Community
purpose of assessing one aspect or more than one aspect of CTS. Colleges. New Direction for Community Colleges, 130.
Tests that can reveal more than one aspect of CTS according to 7. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the
Ennis are: 1) The California CTS Test; 2) Cornell CTS Test Level X; Classification of Educational Goals—Handbook 1: Cognitive
3) Cornell CTS Test Level Z; 4) The Ennis-Weir CTS Essay Test; 5) Domain. New York: McKay.
Judgment: Deductive Logic and Assumption Recognition; 6) New 8. Bonk, C. J., & Smith, G. S. (1998). Alternative instructional
Jersey Test of Reasoning Skills 7) Ross Test of Higher Cognitive strategies for creative and critical thinking in the accounting
Processes; 8) Test of Inquiry Skills, 10) Test of Inference Ability in curriculum. Journal of Accounting Education, 16(2), 261–293.
Reading Comprehension, and 11) Watson-Glaser CTS Appraisal 9. Case, R. (2005). Moving critical thinking to the main stage.
(Bers, 2005; Ennis, 2001). Education Canada, 45(2), 45–49.
10. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996).
Furthermore, Ennis also explained that the test that can reveal one
Learning in humans and machine: Towards an
aspect of CTS is 1) Cornell Class Reasoning Test developed by R.H.
interdisciplinary learning science. In The evolution of
Ennis, W.L. Gardiner, R. Morrow, D. Paul, and L. Ringel; 2) Cornell
research on collaborative learning (pp. 189–211). Oxford,
Conditional Reasoning Test; 3) Logical Reasoning developed by A.
England: Elsevier.
Hertzka and J.P. Guilford, and 4) Test on Appraising Observations
11. Dirgantara, Y., Malik, A., Samsudin, A., Yuningsih, E. K.,
developed by S.P. Norris and R. King (Bers, 2005).
Chusni, M. M., Agustina, R. D., & Fairuzillah, M. N. (2019).
In addition to the above forms of tests, there is also another form Stakeholder view of competency profiles (pedagogical,
of test developed by Ennis under the name Cornell CTS Tests professional, social and personality) graduate of the physics
which is focused on aspects of induction, credibility, prediction, education. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1280,
fallacy, deduction, definition, and identification of assumptions. p. 52026). IOP Publishing.
Furthermore, Ennis also developed the Ennis-Weir CTS Essay Test 12. Duldt-Battey, B. W. (1997). Coaching winners: How to teach
with Weir. This test focuses on truth, gives reasons, assumes, critical thinking, in crirical thinking across the curricullum
evaluates statements, gives appropriate reasons, looks for project. Missouri: Longview Community College Lee’s
alternative reasons, avoids rejection, irrelevance, circularity, Summit.
overgeneralization and language that is not directed (R. Paul, 13. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical
Linda, & Bartell, 1997). thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48.
14. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
CONCLUSSION Prentice-Hall.
Thinking is the development of ideas and concepts in a person as 15. Ennis, R. H. (2001). Critical Thinking Assessment. The Ohio
a process of representing new thoughts through the activities of State University, 32(3).
manipulating or managing and transforming information in 16. Ennis, R. H. (2011). The Nature of Critical Thinking: An
memory to form concepts, thinking critically, making decisions, Outline of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.
and solving problems. CTS are the processes for analyzing, Retrieved from
synthesizing, and / or evaluating information collected or http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/%0Adocumen
generated through reflection, reasoning, or communication, so as ts/TheNatureofCriticalThinking_51711_000.pdf
to produce valid, strong and resistant arguments and conclusions 17. Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert
that are able to provide evidence. A number of researchers has consensus for purposes of educational assessment and
recommended the use of specific teaching strategies to encourage instruction. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press.
the development of CTS and abilities, such as explicit instruction, 18. Facione, P. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical

Journal of critical reviews 1234

 REVIEW OF CRITICAL THINKING SKILL IN INDONESIA: PREPARATION OF THE 21ST CENTURY LEARNER

thinking: Its character, measurement, and relation to critical New Directions for Community Colleges, 77, 3–24.
thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61–84. 36. Paul, R. W., & Linda, E. (2002). Critical Thinking: Tools for
19. Fauzi, A. (2004). Psikologi umum. Bandung: Pustaka Setia. Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Upper
20. Gelman, S. A., & Markman, E. M. (1986). Categories and Saddle River, N.J: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
induction in young children. Cognition, 23, 183–209. 37. Sanjaya, W. (2009). Strategi pembelajaran herorientasi
21. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer atandar proses pendidikan. Jakarta: Prenada.
across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and 38. Santrock, J. W. (2014). Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Salemba
metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), Humanika.
449–455. 39. Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting
22. Heyman, G. D. (2008). Children’s critical thinking when Self-Regulation in Science Education: Metacognition as Part
learning from others. Current Directions in Psychological of a Broader Perspective on Learning. Research in Science
Science, 17(5), 344–347. Education, 36, 111–139.
23. Kennedy, M., Fisher, M. B., & Ennis, R. H. (1991). Educational 40. Setya, W., Ramadhana, A., Putri, H. R., Santoso, A., Malik, A., &
values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform. In Chusni, M. M. (2019). Design and development of
Critical thinking: Literature review and needed research (pp. measurement of measuring light resistance using Light
11–40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum & Dependent Resistance (LDR) sensors. In Journal of Physics:
Associates. Conference Series (Vol. 1402, p. 44102). IOP Publishing.
24. Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust 41. Silva, E. (2008). Measuring Skills for the 21st Century [Report].
ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76(6), Washington, DC. Retrieved from
1261–1277. http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/MeasuringSkills.
25. Lai, E. R. (2011). Critical Thinking, A Literature Review. pdf.
Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com 42. Solso. (1988). Psikologi Umum. Jakarta: Rineka.
26. Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. 43. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature,
Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137. measurement, and improvement National Institute of
27. Lipman, M. (1988). Critical thinking—What can it be? Education. Retrieved from
Educational Leadership, 46(1), 38–43. http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED272882.pdf%0A
28. Lutz, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (2002). Early understanding of the 44. Suriasumantri, J. S. (1984). Ilmu dalam Perspektif. Jakarta:
division of cognitive labor. Child Development, 73(4), 1073– Gramedia.
1084. 45. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2000). Transforming critical thinking:
29. Malik, A., & Chusni, M. M. (2019). Enhancing Student’s Thinking constructively. New York: Teachers College Press.
Problem-Solving Ability Through Collaborative Problem 46. Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based
Solving (CPS) on Simple Harmonic Motion Concept. In measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking
Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1175, p. 12179). skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7),
IOP Publishing. 1–22.
30. McPeck, J. E. (1990). Critical thinking and subject specificity: 47. Van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some
A reply to Ennis. Educational Researcher, 19(4), 10–12. lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–
31. Moseley, D., Baumfield, V., & Elliott, J. (2005). Frameworks for 48.
thinking: A handbook for teaching and learning. Cambridge: 48. Walker, G. H. (1997). Critical Thinking. Retrieved from
Cambridge University Press. http://www.utc.edu/Teaching-
32. Nelson, C. E. (1994). Critical thinking and collaborative ResourceCenter/critical.htm.#strategies)
learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, (59), 45– 49. Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard
58. to teach? American Educator, 8–19.
33. Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical 50. Yuningsih, E. K., Chusni, M. M., & Sidik, R. (2018). Electrical
thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications. fall (EFA) as a learning media for electromagnetic induction.
34. Paul, R., Linda, E., & Bartell, T. (1997). California Teacher In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering
Preparation for Instruction in Critical Commision, Thinking (p. 012287). IOP Publishing.
Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. California:
California Commision on Teacher Credentialing.
35. Paul, R. W. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how?

Journal of critical reviews 1235

View publication stats